Okay, it seems I'm in the minority with my preference for login_user().
I've committed the patch with force_login(). Thanks for the feedback.
On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 4:34:11 PM UTC-4, Berker Peksag wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Tim Graham > wrote:
> > There's a proposal [1] t
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Tim Graham wrote:
> There's a proposal [1] to add a new method to the test client that works
> like login(), but skips the authentication (no credentials need to be
> provided) and verification (is_active=False can login) steps. The signature
> is (user, backend=No
I second Andriy's comment.
/Markus
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 04:41:06PM +0300, Andriy Sokolovskiy wrote:
force_login() seems to be more clear what it going on inside
On 6/30/15 16:38, Tim Graham wrote:
There's a proposal [1] to add a new method to the test client that works
like login(), but sk
force_login() seems to be more clear what it going on inside
On 6/30/15 16:38, Tim Graham wrote:
> There's a proposal [1] to add a new method to the test client that works
> like login(), but skips the authentication (no credentials need to be
> provided) and verification (is_active=False can logi
There's a proposal [1] to add a new method to the test client that works
like login(), but skips the authentication (no credentials need to be
provided) and verification (is_active=False can login) steps. The signature
is (user, backend=None). What would you name this method?
Proposals so far:
